What happened to Stu? Did he quit for some reason? He was such a mainstay here for so long.

northman wrote:

Welcome back Stu :). Yes this is food for a TCG article, but still I just wish people would use resources like tolkienbooks.net more.

https://tolkienbooks.net/php/details2.php?id=219

Explains well why this recent listing isn't a first printing.

Unfortunately I don't really regard tolkienbooks.net as being quite right here. I don't consider the Printing Express version to be an alternate state of the first impression. I don't know exactly when it was printed, but it wasn't until at least 2007 (i.e. at least three years after the initial Lego print). It should just be noted as an incorrectly number-lined reprint. I think there is something buried in the forums about print numbers where HC were about to do that first reprint, but I was previously unable to find it (I can roughly date it as it was when I was living in Brisbane).

Oh I agree about the printing express version and the article needs an update, but it's good enough to have prevented a mistaken identity in this case.

The late Stu wrote:

northman wrote:

Welcome back Stu :). Yes this is food for a TCG article, but still I just wish people would use resources like tolkienbooks.net more.

https://tolkienbooks.net/php/details2.php?id=219

Explains well why this recent listing isn't a first printing.

Unfortunately I don't really regard tolkienbooks.net as being quite right here. I don't consider the Printing Express version to be an alternate state of the first impression. I don't know exactly when it was printed, but it wasn't until at least 2007 (i.e. at least three years after the initial Lego print). It should just be noted as an incorrectly number-lined reprint. I think there is something buried in the forums about print numbers where HC were about to do that first reprint, but I was previously unable to find it (I can roughly date it as it was when I was living in Brisbane).

Emilien at least did an attempt at a summary here:

https://www.tolkienguide.com/modules/n ... t_id=45444#forumpost45444

Giving it (printing express) as a 2nd printing

Since then, having several copies in hand, I discovered there are indeed 2 states of the first printing, but the 2nd state is still printed by LEGO, not Printed Express Hong Kong, the latter handling at least the second (or later) printing.

The main difference between the 2 states of the first printing are as follow :

First state :

It has the price printed on the publisher slip (£60) plus the ISBN-10 - "000711835X" printed on the top of the bar code. The ISBN-13 "9780007118359" is also printed down to the bar code.
Copyright page shows the ISBN 10 "0 00 711835 X" plus the mention of the printer "Printed and bound in Italy by L.E.G.O. SpA"





Second state :

Publisher slip DOES NOT show any printed price but displays the ISBN-10 - "000711835X" printed on the top of the bar code. The ISBN-13 "9780007118359" is printed down to the bar code.
Copyright page shows only the The ISBN-13 "978 0 00 711835 9" plus the mention of the printer "Printed and bound in Italy by L.E.G.O. SpA"





All subsequent printings does not show either the price or the ISBN 10 on the publisher slip, nor on the copyright page. They would only show the ISBN 13 both on the publisher slip or copyright page.
Subsequent impressions are printed by Printing Express HK, RR Donelly China, another print run by L.E.G.O (for what it seems the 11th printing but I never got this printing in hands), and finally by Rotolito.

Emilien wrote:

Since then, having several copies in hand, I discovered there are indeed 2 states of the first printing, but the 2nd state is still printed by LEGO, not Printed Express Hong Kong, the latter handling at least the second (or later) printing.

The main difference between the 2 states of the first printing are as follow :

First state :

It has the price printed on the publisher slip (£60) plus the ISBN-10 - "000711835X" printed on the top of the bar code. The ISBN-13 "9780007118359" is also printed down to the bar code.
Copyright page shows the ISBN 10 "0 00 711835 X" plus the mention of the printer "Printed and bound in Itally by L.E.G.O. SpA"

Second state :

Publisher slip DOES NOT show any printed price but displays the ISBN-10 - "000711835X" printed on the top of the bar code. The ISBN-13 "9780007118359" is printed down to the bar code.
Copyright page shows only the The ISBN-13 "978 0 00 711835 9" plus the mention of the printer "Printed and bound in Itally by L.E.G.O. SpA"

All subsequent printings does not show either the price or the ISBN 10 on the publisher slip, nor on the copyright page. They would only show the ISBN 13 both on the publisher slip or copyright page.
Subsequent impressions are printed by Printing Express HK, RR Donelly China, another print run by L.E.G.O (for what it seems the 11th printing but I never got this printing in hands), and finally by Rotolito.

Nice information on the publisher slip, an easy (and probably the only) way to determine if it's actually a first state printing for sealed copies.

With that new info, I pulled down my copy which came in the 4-Volume The J. R. R. Tolkien Deluxe Edition Collection set and it's an First state, 1st printing (more or less for record keeping as I assume these posts will be moved to a standalone thread).

Also worth mentioning that while I've seen a bunch of Hobbit Deluxe volumes online (auctions, FB, reddit, etc.) I've yet to see one printed in China by RR Donnelly APS that actually had a value in the number-line -- they've all been blank (like the L.E.G.O. ones until the 11th). However I had not paid enough attention to note which ISBN (10 or 13) was used throughout them.

Moved to a separate thread.

Nice tip re: publishers slip markings for sealed 1st state Hobbits.

I'm assuming, or at least hoping it translates to LOTR 50th in the box set too, as the markings on the publishers slip appear v similar to the Hobbit identifier, unlike other sealed editions (2nd pic).

The Lord of the rings in the 2008 limited box set is a 2nd printing (which seems to be produced only for this boxset and then also limited to 500 copies).
The 2nd printing has the same tengwar writing style than the first, but doesn't show the retail price of £100 (as for the 3rd printing).

Taking that on board, and respectfully valuing your insight, as the box set edition of LOTR in the first photo does show the £100 marking, wouldn't that make it a 1st impression? Otherwise if all boxed set LOTRs are 2nds then the publishers slip is not able to determine the impression.

(The 2nd photo was a comparison with another sealed 50th anniversary edition to show the difference).